I feel you. Especially the ones aiming for JEE. Only formulas, no practicality

@@aryanshrivastava8312 I know that mate.

@Free Hongkong It's wrong bro Indian teachers are very creative

I can understand

@@aryanshrivastava8312 finally someone with same thoughts

great!!

And now you are in the University

Please respond people above, are you graduated ? persuing phd?

Yap bro Really amazing ❣️🥀

Now u r in college

:)

You are very welcome

You are not correct . It may be your personal experience.

Right

+Fjorida Panxhi Thank you Fjorida!

:)

:)

Who the f is David?

Who's David

+magicmike1122 Think very carefully before you make that decision.

@@lecturesbywalterlewin.they9259 Yeah you are right sir

Mee too;

Glad to hear it!

It's my pleasure

you are welcome

My guess is that the "almighty" had more important things on her mind.

www.numericana.com/fame/#lewin

thats what i was going to comment haha... did you finish your cie exams?

thanks for your kind words

@@lecturesbywalterlewin.they9259 You're welcome, Doctor. I have a special love of pendulums as a musician (and a former physics teacher), and I have created metronomes of every variety from Winkel's ideas (Harrison used the double-weighted even before in one of his marine chronometers) to Weber's Rhenish inch pendulums for timing. I wonder, if it's no bother, do you know of a time when in the 18th or 19th centuries that scientists like Young or musicians like Beethoven might have used the OSCILLATION instead of the VIBRATION when determining metronome markings for their works ... super curious if you might know. Thanks again, and keep on doing what you do; you're amazing at capturing our attention!!!

@@thomashughes4859 If you like pendulums, try to solve my Physics Problem #3 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bqeFq7ph16vPYYU.html

@@lecturesbywalterlewin.they9259 Statement: By matching vibrations (beat rates) of two sets of physical and simple pendulums (+/- 0.1 beats) and measuring them (+/- .003 M), I find that the physical pendulum and the simple pendulum have a 1.5:1 ratio with respect to L; therefore, the formula for a physical pendulum as shewn in the video is: T= 2π ((2/3)*(L/g))^(1/2) NB: The mass (M) (because of its equal distribution in the phys. pend.) and the displacement angle (b) (too small to fall out of isochronism) are not necessary in this equation.

@@thomashughes4859 super, now try to solve my Physics Problem #4, kzfaq.info/get/bejne/oqehl5ii16zIiZs.html

Wow, thank you

You can find many on the web

:)

It's my pleasure

So nice of you

it's never too late to fall in love

@@lecturesbywalterlewin.they9259 when did you fall

Well, this man was born in the Netherlands (yes, in Yurp, next to Germany) in 1936 and around 1965 he started working at MIT. So he grew up without inches and feet! I am Dutch too, I know the problem. The rest of the world is in love with inches, feet, stones, two tastes of miles, Fahrenheit and whatever. I can not get used to these strange numbers and I don't want to know what Fahrenheit was thinking. The only one scale more bizar is Delisle. The higher the number, the colder it is. Yes, an inverted scale. Great. Of course we understand and if needed we get used to your units soon enough, but a scientist must get tired of all those conversions before and after the actual calculations. Or he must use different constants for the oldfashioned units, which is just as annoying. Tradition is okay, but it has toooo many drawbacks. A funny example was a giant hot air balloon, a Frisian cow. Drawing was in centimeters, and it was produced in the UK, in inches. That's a whole lot of volume more than expected. So, the balloon pilot said no thanks, and in the end somebody else bought it and installed a very large basket. This is a true story and there have been more cases of confusion just like this one. Awkward. So, thumbs and forearms and feet and stones, funny, but no thank you. No hard feelings, people start argueing about such things, viewers of this video know better. It is the way it is. At least I hope you liked the giant flying cow!

super

My pleasure

53:01

😊

Thank you so much!

>>> Is that correct?>>> I don't know use google, this goes back to the 17th century

did we meet in Cambridge and did I make a video of our meeting?

thanx for reminding me

@@lecturesbywalterlewin.they9259 I hope you're safe during this time. My heart goes out to any directly affected by this pandemic... I've been in self-quarantine for about a month here on Long Island and am looking forward to a time when I can resume my trips to Cambridge... I'm sure we all are looking forward to a return to normalcy...

I do not solve problems for viewers - I teach physics. Watch my 8.01 lectures and you will be able to do this *very simple high school problem*

+montaseer alam My 94 course lectures which are on this site were originally on PIVoT. PIVoT no longer exists.

If you have followed my 8.01 and 8.03 lectures, you should be able to do this. There are 2 normal mode solutions. It's a classic problem. If you cannot do it, I suggest you try to find the solutions on the web. I have no time for this.

+Carmel Pule' Gravity is the ONLY force that does work when we drop an object or when we swing a pendulum. Since work is the dot product between the force and the displacement, in both cases you find that all that matter is the vertical distance that the objects travel. If we drop an objects from the same height from which we drop the pendulum the dropped object will have a higher speed as it hits the floor than the pendulum at its lowest point as the vertical distance displacement of the dropped object is larger. KE=mgh. thus the speed is sqrt(2gh).